|
Anybody who
has ever had two or more children consuming food at one and
the same time, knows that such moments constitute a recipe for
family disaster. Picture a pie….banana
cream….blueberry….pecan….even pizza. Picture two kids.
Picture one knife. Who will cut….that is the question. Let
us assume that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is busy
elsewhere. Ditto for the head of the National Bureau of
Measures and Standards. And your phone call to the nearest
bishop yields nothing but a busy signal.
So
with all the parental objectivity you can muster, you take the
knife. You make the cuts. You serve the pieces. And then you
wait for the wails you know will follow. They are wails about
“the bigger piece”….who got it….who didn’t get it.
Even though a mathematician with a micrometer can’t discern
the difference, your kids can. Or think they can.
So
you learn a little technique, the better to avoid such
confrontations in the future. You refuse to make the cut.
Assuming two kids at the table, you assign one to be the
slicer. But before they fight for control of the knife, you
say: “Yes, one of you gets to cut the pie. But, once cut,
the other of you gets to choose the first piece.”
Children
are big on fairness. We’ve talked of this before. Not only
can they spot unfairness a mile away, but they can smell it
even when their noses are stuffed. “No fair….no fair,”
they cry. And they expect the adults in their lives to rush in
and rectify the inequity. The fact that those same adults
will, one day, have to teach them that life isn’t fair is
lost at that moment. Because, to whatever degree fairness can
be ordained and orchestrated, it is the adults who are charged
with making it so.
Which
is an easy trap to get sucked into. I remember when our kids
were young, and Kris and I were young. Christmas would come
and we would try to make sure each kid got the same. Not the
same stuff, mind you. But the same dollar-value worth of
stuff. I even remember going out at the last minute to buy
something extra for one or the other of the kids. My goal was
to make the total balance out. And then there were those years
when one kid’s major present was abnormally expensive,
meaning that the kid who got that big present got fewer
presents in total than did the kid whose presents were
cheaper, albeit more numerous. As a parent, I’d sit there
trying to figure out whether they had figured it out….and
whether I needed to find some subtle way to explain the
inequity that they may or may not be perceiving.
If
that sounds stupid (and I know it does), we’ve all been
there. And our motives as parents were, and perhaps still are,
no different from God’s parental motives in desiring to give
good and equitable gifts to all God’s children.
Today’s
sermon title contains the word “justice.” Which is a
biblical word, every bit as much as a contemporary word. But
in researching its biblical origins, I was surprised to find
how many times (in its usage) it has to do with the needs of
those who have less, measured against the obligations of those
who have more. Time and again, biblical justice is mentioned
in conjunction with God’s concern for the poor, the weak,
the widows, the orphans, the enslaved, the resident aliens
within one’s gates, and the physically infirm. I didn’t
make this up. I am only telling you how it reads. In the main,
justice is more concerned with distribution than with
retribution….at least in the Bible.
I’ll
come back to that in a minute, after we stretch our legs at
this little rest stop called “Amos.” I am not talking
about “Famous Amos”….he who makes cookies in California.
I am talking about anonymous Amos….he who preached to the
northern kingdom of Israel in the 8th century BC.
As
seminarians in the ‘60s, we loved this little speech that
rolled off my tongue mere moments ago….the speech about
God’s non-delight in the religious feasts, sacred offerings
and solemn assemblies of Israel’s worship. Instead, cried
Amos: “Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness
like an everflowing stream.”
There
we sat in our dorm rooms and study carrels at Yale Divinity
School, salivating at the thought of laying a little Amos on
our first church, the first time the congregation got itself
lathered up about whether communion should be taken in the
pews or at the rail, or whether the Gloria Patri should be
sung to the new tune, the old tune, or dropped from the
service altogether. Then we would rise up in prophetic
indignation and, in the deepest voices we could muster (being
mostly men, then), we would lay a little Amos on them. Well,
as I recall (some 38 years later), some did and soon
left….some did and soon learned….and some chickened out
and crucified their internal Amos, allowing no possibility of
resurrection.
Truth
be told, Amos never said: “Don’t worship.” What Amos
said was: “If what you do is pure and lovely in here, yet
stinks to high heaven out there, it ain’t worship….it
ain’t right….and it ain’t of God. So get with the
program, which is about charity and community every bit as
much as it is about liturgy.” Ah, it feels good to say that
even now, 2800 long years after Amos. And 38 relatively short
years (where did they go, good Lord?) after Yale.
But
while it is true that justice, in the Bible, is very much
about distribution, there are texts which speak of justice as
retribution….making things right as well as making things
available. The Bible seems to say: “If there are any
principles….any laws….any truths….any behaviors that
matter to God (and the Bible is clear that there are), then
God ought to do something to ensure that they prevail, and
God’s people ought to do something to ensure that they
prevail.”
When
the psalmist cries, “Show forth thy righteousness, O God,”
he is saying: “Do something, O God, to ensure that the right
things don’t get trampled, and that people who do the right
things don’t lose.” For in those passages (wherever they
occur), justice and righteousness are parallel notions, almost
to the point of interchangeability.
The
Bible assumes God cares how things come out. The Bible also
assumes God’s people should, too. So when Christians say,
“All I want is justice,” one hopes that what they are
asking is that God’s will be done in this situation.
Hopefully, they are saying: “All I want is that God’s
truth be revealed….God’s values be affirmed….God’s
laws be obeyed….and God’s Kingdom (to whatever degree it
is realizable here) be established.” For the Christian,
justice is not just about getting the laws of the land to
work, but getting the laws of the Lord to work. Which is why
we ought to be careful what we pray for, lest we get it.
But
I am not sure we understand that. Too often, when we cry out
for justice, our concern is not that we will obtain it, but
that somebody else will be brought to it. Which is okay, as
far as it goes. Wrong should not go unpunished. Evil should
not go unchecked. Falsehoods should not go unchallenged.
Criminals should not go uncaught. And those who are predatory
and injurious should not go unrestrained. Otherwise, God is
mocked. Even us do-gooder, bleeding-heart preachers can see
that. We’re not naïve. Justice means that some things must
be opposed….and some people must be opposed. It would be
nice if it didn’t have to be that way. But there are times
when it does. Realism suggests it. But it is the power of sin
(known better by preachers than anybody else) which requires
it.
But
it is precisely at this point that we Christians need to be
careful, lest we forget who we are in the process of opposing
what we feel called to oppose. God sent Jonah to preach doom
and destruction to Ninevah for her sin. But, as concerned her
sin, Ninevah repented of it. So, as concerned Ninevah’s
destruction, God backed off from it. And Jonah was ticked.
Why? I’ll tell you why. Because Jonah had gotten his chips
and salsa and climbed the nearest hill with his binoculars to
watch those people fry. What he forgot is that while the
penultimate goal of divine justice is to bring evil down, the
ultimate goal of divine justice is to turn evil-doers around.
Which implies a certain restraint in everything we Christians
do….and an even greater restraint in everything we
Christians pray for.
As
I told you last week, I have spent a fair amount of time this
past year reading what my brother and sister preachers have
said about September 11. I have read sermons preached one week
after and one year after. There are now five such collections.
What interests me is how good they are. Give us something
significant to grind our teeth on and we boring blokes can be
quite eloquent.
Tony
Campolo was one whose words I read. Many of you remember the
night Tony was here. What an energetic preacher. And while
God’s impassioned Italian has never been boring, he outdid
himself in a sermon entitled: “The Best of Times, The Worst
of Times.” Let me serve you a slice:
I worry
about vengeance, given that vengeance can be a very
destructive mindset. And may I point out that I differ with
Senator McCain when he says: “God may give them mercy, but
they’ll get none from us.” Of all the senators I’ve
heard speak, I thought Senator Mikulski from Maryland said
the best thing. In that great prayer meeting they held under
the Capital dome, she said: “I pray, dear God, that you
will bring those who perpetrated this evil”….and there I
sat, waiting for her to say “to justice.” But instead,
she said “to repentance.” For that’s our hope, that
the repetitive cycle of violence will be grounded and that,
with repentance, lives will be changed and a new day will
dawn.
Responding
to those lines when he first spoke them, someone asked Campolo
where in the world he got such a radical idea. To which Tony
said: “From Jesus.” Leading his critic to fire back:
“Well, this is no time to be going around quoting Jesus.”
*
* * * *
On
September 11 of this year, Mitch Albom did not write on the
Sports Page, but on the front page. And he did not write about
an athlete, but about a terrorist. He wrote about Osama Bin
Laden, who he called a loser (quite correctly, I thought).
It
was a powerful piece….a passionate piece….a patriotic
piece. In my old age, having finally given myself permission
to let my patriotism show, I enjoyed Mitch’s piece,
especially when we portray patriotism as pride in the values
that have made this country great, rather than waving our
fingers like stupid football players in the faces of the
world, screaming: “We’re number one, we’re number
one.”
Mitch’s
piece was patriotic in the best sense, when to Bin Laden he
said:
If
you sought to destroy our spirit, you failed.
If you sought to destroy our will, you failed.
If you planned on demoralizing us, you failed.
If you planned on dividing us, you failed.
If
you planned on destabilizing us, we’re still here. Our
streets….our schools…. our government….our
freedom….still here. You, on the other hand, lost your
sandlot….your real estate….your roof and your
umbrella….your shelter from the storm….(in short) your
home.
If
you dreamed of victory, you failed….domination, you
failed….Muslims on one side, Westerners on the other, you
failed.
But
then Mitch crossed a line (moving onto my turf) when, in
speaking to Bin Laden, he segued from “No God condones
you” to “No God loves you.” Which harkened back to the
lines with which Mitch’s piece began:
If you
are dead, you failed….because you are not in some blessed
place, sitting under a yum yum tree. You are in a corner of
hell reserved for murderers.
Now
I will confess to you that when I read that line eleven days
ago….and in reading it just now….there is a part of me
that is quite comfortable transforming my fist and my forearm
into a giant exclamation mark and saying: “Yes.” That’s
the part of me sitting with my chips, my salsa and my
binoculars, waiting to watch my enemies fry.
But
I do not like that part of me….in part, because Jesus tells
me I should not like that part of me (even though some of you
will momentarily tell me that “this is no time to be going
around quoting Jesus”).
So
Mitch….I love you, buddy….keep on writing. But I hope that
Senator Mikulski is closer to the truth than Senator McCain.
And when we get those sons of _______ who perpetrated this
evil, I pray that God will grab ‘em by whatever still moves
‘em, and bring ‘em….to repentance.
And
me, too, while He’s at it.
Note: I spent a fair amount of time researching the word
“justice” in biblical dictionaries and commentaries.
Surprisingly, there is little clarity or singularity about its
meaning. Often linked with “righteousness,” it is slanted
toward a concept of distribution, bringing the resources of
those who have much to bear upon the needs of those who have
little. But there is a minority report, as it were, that links
“justice” with words like “vindication” and
“retribution”….suggesting that when true justice exists,
God’s concept of “right” will be established and other
concepts of “wrong” will be dethroned. Hopefully, the
sermon reflects both of those concepts.
The
distinction Tony Campolo makes between justice and repentance
can be found in the collection of sermons referenced last
week, entitled The Sunday After Tuesday: College Pulpits
Respond to 9/11 (Willimon and Hauerwas).
Mitch
Albom’s essay appeared on the front page of the Detroit Free
Press, Wednesday, September 11, 2002. Those who live in other
parts of the country will know Mitch as the author of the
acclaimed bestseller, Tuesdays With Morrie.
|